[dan1123]

Science, at its most basic level, is a search for explanations about the natural world.

Defining science as naturalism doesn't do away with the philosophical assumptions of science. How do you know naturalism is true? Is naturalism falsifiable?

Read the article in the link on #294 for a more in-depth look at the problems with the philosophy of science and defining science.

[Coyoteman]

Defining science as naturalism doesn't do away with the philosophical assumptions of science. How do you know naturalism is true? Is naturalism falsifiable?

I tend to avoid philosophers and their output. They have been arguing about things for several millennia and have come up with little to show for it.

I particularly ignore their comments on science. Usually they amount to nothing more than, "But we were here first! Please pay some attention to us... Oh, please!"

While philosophers are babbling on, scientists are out there doing useful things.

(Oh, and don't bother to tell me that Ph.D. stands for Doctor of Philosophy. I got a Ph.D. without ever having to take a philosophy course -- I avoided sociology and economics as well, and haven't missed any of them.)